1 hour ago, SRose said:

I am NOT looking for pilot program contracts (they are not doing them yet).  I am sorry that that was not clear.  I am looking for service contracts that are specifically multi-year contracts of whatever length.  We are trying to understand when and why that specific authority is used.  It appears to be used very rarely.  I hope that clears it up a bit.

We have found many other types of contracts (ESPCs, services under working capital funds etc.) that have been very helpful to us.

Ok, thanks.  

By the way, I would think that there are WIFCON members and readers out there who are involved in multi year service contracting . Okay, readers, now you should know what DPAP is interested in learning. 

Bob, we are working for DPAP.  The deliverable is a report that will be sent to Congress.  Thanks for helping me clarify.

Ok, can somebody please clarify if the great DoD Contracting Software in the Sky has a mandatory data element to identify that a service contract is a multi-year service contract?  It would seem logical to me that the proponent for the legislation to provide  the authority and the pilot program would certainly be able to determine what contracts are using the authority or are otherwise MYS contracts. Just curious . 

Edit:  if not, then DoD should put out a data call, not require their contractor to. Just saying.  

 

1 hour ago, SRose said:

I am looking for service contracts that are specifically multi-year contracts of whatever length. 

What I think SRose means is of whatever length up to five years. The study is about service contracts that are annually funded, but for which multi-year authority is granted in accordance with FAR Subpart 17.1. The study is about the prospects from legislation that would permit such contracts to be for more than five years.

This isn't hard. SRose wants to communicate with someone who has used a multi-year service contract. If you've used one, contact SRose based on the info in the OP. If you know someone who's used one, pass the info on to SRose. If you haven't used one and don't know anyone who's used one, have a nice day.

51 minutes ago, joel hoffman said:

Edit:  if not, then DoD should put out a data call, not require their contractor to. Just saying.  

Horse pucky. Why not.

3 hours ago, bob7947 said:

Would utility contracts be considered service contracts? 

Yes. Look at the title of FAR Part 41. Look at the definition in FAR 41.101.

I presume that a multi-year service contract will be one that requires the contractor to make a long-term capital investment.

 

2 hours ago, SRose said:

We have found many other types of contracts (ESPCs, services under working capital funds etc.) that have been very helpful to us.

@SRose - I understand the following do not fall under the FAR part 17 but under 36 CFR Part 51 but offering as they may be helpful if you have not already looked at.

National Park Service - Concessions contracts.  Especially "headquarters contracts" are for periods of 10 years 

Thank you Vern for 41.1.

SRose:

You may try DLA.  I'm not sure if privatization fits your directions but there must be some knowledge there.  It fits services listed in 10 U.S. Code § 2306c (b).  Also, Defense Environmental Remediation contracts fits and may be at DENEX.

 

SRose:

The NDAA tells DoD to conduct the study 

Quote

by commercial companies, foreign governments, and State governments, as well as service contracts for periods longer than five years used by the Federal Government

I assume that DoD repeated the requirement in your study.  As a matter of personal interest, do you have separate teams covering

• commercial companies,
• foreign governments,
• State governments, and 
• the Federal Government.

A year goes by quickly.

C. Culham, thank you, I will check those out.

Bob, we have already talked to multiple commercial companies, state and foreign governments.  We are working on the Federal government now.

 

1 hour ago, joel hoffman said:

Ok, can somebody please clarify if the great DoD Contracting Software in the Sky has a mandatory data element to identify that a service contract is a multi-year service contract?

Yes, FPDS has a data element for multiyear contracts, but SRose said the data are unreliable.

One thing to keep in mind with lengthy contracts involving transfer of capital assets in addition to recognizing the wasting value capital assets (which will be a primary concern of the contractor) is a capital asset's residual value at contract end. How this is handled differs according to situation at hand.

Privatization efforts for utilities and housing involve analysis of wasting assets and their residual value.

FAR Part 41 regulated utility service contracts already consider capital contribtion, so this tends not to be an issue with regulated utilities. 

Typical commercial leases involve competition and a lease vs buy analysis which  should highlight any problems on this front.

Incidentally, energy savings contracts don't present the same concern over residual value since there is no transfer of government assets (the improvrments remain government property).

Unlike all of the above, a first time or innovative  effort at a long term contract involving capital assets (in lieu of a simple fee for service where the government retains the asset)  may be difficult to fund (constraints of fiscal law on capital contribution) and may suffer for falling outside of any existing regulatory or established privatization review process.  Government shouldn't want to transfer assets to a contractor without considering the residual value at the end of the contract, but it may, ironically, be more difficult for government to fund the effort when giving formal recognition to the residual value of capital assets. Not doing so can be a very expensive mistake.  

I was involved with the award of one 10-year service contract for base support services at NASA-KSC over 10 years ago (https://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/releases/2008/release-20080618.html).

The services were pretty complex (more more than the typical "roads and commodes" base ops contract) and the SSEB took over a year (and that was with everything going smoothly and no protest) simply because the proposals and the required evaluations were so complex. You can see how this is not something you want to go through every 5 years....

Edit: our base year was 3 years (if I remember right), but the contract also included options. I believe our reason for doing a 3 year base was because we didn't think one year was sufficient to fully evaluate the contractor's performance, and therefore whether it made sense to exercise subsequent options.

Thank you MileHighAcq.  We will reach out to the contacts listed.

Out of curiosity, do other agencies distinguish between whether the services are serverable or non-severable when it comes to multi-year contracts, for the purposes of obtaining HCA approval?

In my mind, it comes down to whether you are buying more than 1 year's requirement. If the services are non-severable (e.g. it will take 3 years to complete a study), then it's essentially one requirement that spans several years rather than buying multiple years' of requirements.